We Need a Law challenges you

We Need a Law has written a thorough piece defending their view that gestational limits, or incrementalism as it is sometimes known, is the way to fight abortion in the political arena in Canada today. I tend to agree, though one thoughtful pastor (Protestant, I may as well mention, since so often I think people believe that Catholics are against incrementalism and Protestants for) did present me with some thoughtful arguments on why one might be against incrementalism.

Anyway, the challenge WNAL thoughtfully places before you, if you disagree with them, is to convince them on why they are wrong:

We want to conclude with a challenge. If you think we are wrong, please address these points one by one and explain why. Be specific.

This matters, greatly. It’s no great secret that the pro-life movement is not unified on this matter. And we need unity if we are going to stand up and fight together.

I personally think, without wanting to be insulting, that those who are against incrementalism in the political sphere aren’t actually called to fight abortion in the political sphere. We need educators in the cultural sphere who won’t waver one bit: We know when life begins and we should teach this. But to preach non-incrementalism in the political environment is an exercise in futility.

I say this as someone who is more on the educational side of the battle myself. (Three arms to being pro-life these days: Educational, Political and Charitable.)

Anyway, I know the division. And I know that pro-lifers are a strong-minded crew, myself very much included. If we can discuss this thoughtfully–we’ll be one step ahead.

Comments

Thank you, thank you, thank you for talking about this issue!! I was starting to think that incrementalism was the elephant in the room that we just were never going to talk about.

I’m an incrementalist myself, (and Catholic too, as if that matters). Truth of the matter is, though, I would bow out of this fight if we got to a certain incremental point (right now, I think that would be if abortion were limited to the embryonic stage of pregnancy, or the 1st trimester at the latest, although I could quite conceivably become so tired of the fight that I would bow out if we were to achieve a considerably less significant victory). I sometimes wonder if that is why the people who are opposed to incrementalism are so adamant–they know that they will consistently lose support as smaller gains are made.

I agree with you Andrea and think that the distinction you draw between the political and the cultural sphere is an important one. Yes, some need to hold the high road when it comes to respecting life from conception onwards. But to gain any ground on the pro-life front, we have to be willing to break the wall brick by brick rather than saying we must bring the whole wall down or forget it.

As a Catholic and an incrementalist myself, I’m not sure why Catholics are identified with being against incrementalism. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II specifically spoke about this (see below). As someone who is too young to remember a Canada with any restrictions on abortion, I welcome any opportunity to remind people that abortion is not all its cracked up to be.

(73) A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Thanks, all. I know plenty of incrementalist Catholics today. I wonder if they feel a little beleaguered. As for ceasing to fight if an incremental victory were won, that’s not my sense. I think at this point any kind of victory would motivate people to continue.
I will say this, let’s say incrementalist pro-lifers got a law through that banned abortion after 8 weeks– that would be a crazy huge victory in our current climate. They would then lose a lot of public sympathy for continuing the battle. Right now pro-lifers are the underdog. In that circumstance, as attitudes stand right now we would no longer be the underdog at all.
as a final point, though, it makes no sense to play the what-ifs game in my mind. Because the Canada that could pass any kind of legislation, incrementalist or non, would be a different Canada than the one we have today.